Anathema
Enrique San Martín
If Anathema is played twice in a vampire, and this is
reduced to zero blood (in combat), żwhat happening?, żthe mathusalen,
controlling the opposing minion, earns twice the capacity of the
vampire? or ż simply is lost the effect of the second anathema?
if you don't understand my english (i don't be a english speakear)
here is the text in spanish:
Si anathema es jugado dos veces en un vampiro, y su
sangre es reducida a cero (en combate), żque pasa?, żel mathusalen,
que controla el minion opositor, gana dos veces la capacidad del
vampiro? o żsimplemente se pierde el efecto del segundo anathema?
Enrique San Martin W.
VEKN Membership number: 1002072
Damnans
Enrique San Martín wrote:
>
> My question is:
> If Anathema is played twice in a vampire, and this is
> reduced to zero blood (in combat), żwhat happening?, żthe mathusalen,
> controlling the opposing minion, earns twice the capacity of the
> vampire? or ż simply is lost the effect of the second anathema?
All V:TES cards are cumulative by default, unless their texts state
otherwise, so in the example you have given above, the controller of the
opposing minion gains 2X pool, where X is the capacity of the burned
vampire.
[...]
> Si anathema es jugado dos veces en un vampiro, y su
> sangre es reducida a cero (en combate), żque pasa?, żel mathusalen,
> que controla el minion opositor, gana dos veces la capacidad del
> vampiro? o żsimplemente se pierde el efecto del segundo anathema?
Todas las cartas son intrínsecamente acumulativas en V:TES, a no ser
que su texto indique lo contrario, por lo que, en el caso que has expuesto,
el controlador del siervo oponente gana el doble de la capacidad del
pobre vampiro anatemizado por partida doble.
Saludos,
Damnans
legbiter
> My question is:
> If Anathema is played twice in a vampire, and this is
> controlling the opposing minion, earns twice the capacity of the
IANLSJ, but i think the answer to this is that the second Anathema
doesn't kick off, because it is played ON the vampire. This means that
when the vampire burns due to the First Anathema, both the vampire and
the second anathema also burn, so the second one has no chance to kick
in.
<snip Spanish text - thanks, matey, your question is perfectly
well-phrased!>
LSJ
>
> es...@chile.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Enrique_San_Mart=EDn?=) wrote in message news:<cafbc9c8.02111...@posting.google.com>...
> > My question is:
> > If Anathema is played twice in a vampire, and this is
> > reduced to zero blood (in combat), ¿what happening?, ¿the mathusalen,
> > controlling the opposing minion, earns twice the capacity of the
> > vampire? or ¿ simply is lost the effect of the second anathema?
>
> IANLSJ, but i think the answer to this is that the second Anathema
> doesn't kick off, because it is played ON the vampire. This means that
> when the vampire burns due to the First Anathema, both the vampire and
> the second anathema also burn, so the second one has no chance to kick
> in.
Hmm. Good point. I had answered this the other way recently (stacking),
but obviously the second one would be burned by the first and would
therefore not "activate" from the ash heap.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. ERC
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Mauricio Villarroel
that vampire. "If the vampire with this card" is reduced to zero blood in
combat, he or she is burned, and the Methuselah controlling the opposing
minion gains pool equal to the burned vampire's capacity."
"If the vampire with this card"
The vampire with this card, therefore is the card (the politics) the one
that gives the pool to the matusalen that controls the minion opponent,
should receive twice the capacity of the vampire
Mike Ooi
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3DD7C272...@white-wolf.com...
> legbiter wrote:
> > IANLSJ, but i think the answer to this is that the second Anathema
> > doesn't kick off, because it is played ON the vampire. This means that
> > when the vampire burns due to the First Anathema, both the vampire and
> > the second anathema also burn, so the second one has no chance to kick
> > in.
>
> Hmm. Good point. I had answered this the other way recently (stacking),
> but obviously the second one would be burned by the first and would
> therefore not "activate" from the ash heap.
>
My tummy's rumbling. This doesn't bode well.
Surely there are periods of limbo that exist pre-burning/post burned and
post-burned/pre-ash heap. During which time, necessary game effects are
taken into consideration and resolved.
Or maybe there isn't.
If we go down this road, how you would answer questions to be raised in that
situation, such as:
1. How do you decide which copy "activates"?
-You have 8 individual copies of Anathema on the vampire Whataschmuck,
placed there by different Methuselahs. During combat, Whataschmuck is
reduced to zero blood.
Which copy gets to activate?
Which copies don't, and why?
How do you choose?
2. What about other effects that activate when a minion is burned? Wouldn't
some of these effects also not activate from the ash heap?
-Charnas is also attached to the vampire Whataschmuck. Due to the Anathema
situation, Whataschmuck and all the cards attached to him are now headed for
their owners' respective ash heaps.
Does the Methuselah who lost Whataschmuck get to place Charnas on any ready
minion, even though Charnas is currently headed for an ash heap that will
not (in this case) include Whataschmuck?
Would you ignore Charnas' card text because the card is in the ash heap?
Maybe Anathema shouldn't be cumulative due to thematic or game-balancing
issues. And I'd be fine with any decision based on that. But the Ash Heap
Cha-Cha-Cha doesn't make sense to me due to the other holes it could open
up.
-Mike Ooi
Prince of Austin
PS. And I don't understand why my Assamite Storyline deck tanked so hard in
the Dallas tourney. For some reason people don't like Qadir ul-Ghani
recruiting Black Spiral Buddies.
LSJ
> > therefore not "activate" from the ash heap.
>
Acting players orders the events. The one ordered first resolves.
The one ordered later doesn't, since it is no longer around when the
time comes.
> -You have 8 individual copies of Anathema on the vampire Whataschmuck,
> placed there by different Methuselahs. During combat, Whataschmuck is
> reduced to zero blood.
> Which copy gets to activate?
Acting player's choice.
> Which copies don't, and why?
The others, because they didn't resolve in time.
> How do you choose?
Follow 1.6.1.6
> 2. What about other effects that activate when a minion is burned? Wouldn't
> some of these effects also not activate from the ash heap?
Could be.
> -Charnas is also attached to the vampire Whataschmuck. Due to the Anathema
> situation, Whataschmuck and all the cards attached to him are now headed for
> their owners' respective ash heaps.
> Does the Methuselah who lost Whataschmuck get to place Charnas on any ready
> minion, even though Charnas is currently headed for an ash heap that will
> not (in this case) include Whataschmuck?
Yes. Charnas's card text only works when the minion is burned, so therefore
it must be allowed to work when the minion is burned.
> Would you ignore Charnas' card text because the card is in the ash heap?
No, as above.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Darky
> legbiter wrote:
> >
> > es...@chile.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Enrique_San_Mart=EDn?=) wrote in message news:<cafbc9c8.02111...@posting.google.com>...
> > > My question is:
> > > If Anathema is played twice in a vampire, and this is
> > > reduced to zero blood (in combat), ¿what happening?, ¿the mathusalen,
> > > controlling the opposing minion, earns twice the capacity of the
> > > vampire? or ¿ simply is lost the effect of the second anathema?
> >
> > IANLSJ, but i think the answer to this is that the second Anathema
> > doesn't kick off, because it is played ON the vampire. This means that
> > when the vampire burns due to the First Anathema, both the vampire and
> > the second anathema also burn, so the second one has no chance to kick
> > in.
>
> Hmm. Good point. I had answered this the other way recently (stacking),
> but obviously the second one would be burned by the first and would
> therefore not "activate" from the ash heap.
would this be similar to anathema being triggered by the draining of
blood by amaranth (and as such "activating" from the asheap),
or is there a subtle difference in the timing between these two cases?
-D
Joshua Duffin
> > IANLSJ, but i think the answer to this is that the second Anathema
> > doesn't kick off, because it is played ON the vampire. This means that
> > when the vampire burns due to the First Anathema, both the vampire and
> > the second anathema also burn, so the second one has no chance to kick
> > in.
>
> Hmm. Good point. I had answered this the other way recently (stacking),
> but obviously the second one would be burned by the first and would
> therefore not "activate" from the ash heap.
You're saying, even though they activate simultaneously, their
effects have to be handled in sequence, so once the first one
is done resolving, the second one won't be able to? That kind
of makes sense, but should the second one care that it didn't
get to burn the vampire "successfully"? It would have triggered
at the same time as the first one (when the vampire was reduced
to 0 blood); is triggering the effect not enough for the whole
effect to continue to being performed, even if part of it turns
out to be redundant?
I'm having trouble thinking of close analogies with other cards.
It seems like there must be some (things that can trigger at the
same time and one of them, if handled sequentially, would make
the other redundant/impossible) but I can't think of any off the
top of my head. :-) Strikes resolve "simultaneously" in combat,
but that doesn't *have* to be motivation for making other things
work simultaneously (and certainly some don't, eg the various
effects that may need to be handled during the untap phase, though
some (presumably?) do, eg untapping all your cards at the start
of the untap phase).
Josh
time... for a nap
LSJ
>
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:3DD7C272...@white-wolf.com...
> > legbiter wrote:
>
> > > IANLSJ, but i think the answer to this is that the second Anathema
> > > doesn't kick off, because it is played ON the vampire. This means that
> > > when the vampire burns due to the First Anathema, both the vampire and
> > > the second anathema also burn, so the second one has no chance to kick
> > > in.
> >
> > Hmm. Good point. I had answered this the other way recently (stacking),
> > but obviously the second one would be burned by the first and would
> > therefore not "activate" from the ash heap.
>
> You're saying, even though they activate simultaneously, their
> effects have to be handled in sequence, so once the first one
> is done resolving, the second one won't be able to? That kind
> of makes sense, but should the second one care that it didn't
> get to burn the vampire "successfully"?
No. It only "cares" that it itself is no longer in play.
> It would have triggered
> at the same time as the first one (when the vampire was reduced
> to 0 blood); is triggering the effect not enough for the whole
> effect to continue to being performed, even if part of it turns
> out to be redundant?
Nothing happens simultaneously except strikes.
> I'm having trouble thinking of close analogies with other cards.
> It seems like there must be some (things that can trigger at the
> same time and one of them, if handled sequentially, would make
> the other redundant/impossible) but I can't think of any off the
> top of my head. :-) Strikes resolve "simultaneously" in combat,
Day Operation's torporization competing with Force of Will's damage.
If the latter burns the vampire, the former doesn't occur (lack of
target).
> but that doesn't *have* to be motivation for making other things
> work simultaneously (and certainly some don't, eg the various
> effects that may need to be handled during the untap phase, though
> some (presumably?) do, eg untapping all your cards at the start
> of the untap phase).
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Mike Ooi
> Mike Ooi wrote:
> > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> > > Hmm. Good point. I had answered this the other way recently
(stacking),
> > > but obviously the second [anathema] would be burned by the first and
would
> > > therefore not "activate" from the ash heap.
> >
> > 1. How do you decide which copy "activates"?
>
> Acting players orders the events. The one ordered first resolves.
> The one ordered later doesn't, since it is no longer around when the
> time comes.
So if the Methuselah controlling the Anathema vampire is the acting player,
and other effects are competing for sequencing, he/she/it could then order
them in such a fashion as to ignore Anathema altogether.
Boy Toy is acting. Boy Toy has had Anathema placed on him. During Boy Toy's
action, he is blocked. Boy Toy has 1 blood. During strike resolution, Boy
Toy must take 1 damage and 2 aggravated. Boy Toy has been reduced to zero
blood (satisfying Anathema's card text) but is also being burned. Can his
Methuselah play Abandoning the Flesh, which removes Boy Toy from the game
(and burns all his accoutrement) and ignore the Anathema?
-Mike
LSJ
> Boy Toy is acting. Boy Toy has had Anathema placed on him. During Boy Toy's
> action, he is blocked. Boy Toy has 1 blood. During strike resolution, Boy
> Toy must take 1 damage and 2 aggravated. Boy Toy has been reduced to zero
> blood (satisfying Anathema's card text) but is also being burned. Can his
> Methuselah play Abandoning the Flesh, which removes Boy Toy from the game
> (and burns all his accoutrement) and ignore the Anathema?
If you mean "and let the Anathema be burned before it resolves", then yes.
XZealot
> Mike Ooi wrote:
> > Boy Toy is acting. Boy Toy has had Anathema placed on him. During Boy
Toy's
> > action, he is blocked. Boy Toy has 1 blood. During strike resolution,
Boy
> > Toy must take 1 damage and 2 aggravated. Boy Toy has been reduced to
zero
> > blood (satisfying Anathema's card text) but is also being burned. Can
his
> > Methuselah play Abandoning the Flesh, which removes Boy Toy from the
game
> > (and burns all his accoutrement) and ignore the Anathema?
>
> If you mean "and let the Anathema be burned before it resolves", then yes.
STOP THE TORTURE! I say to thee stop thine own madness.
I believe that you are putting the cart before the horse on this one. The
reason that you are able to play the Abandoning the Flesh is that Boy Toy
has been reduced to zero blood which triggered the Anathema which burned Boy
Toy which then triggered the Abandoning the Flesh. This goes under the if X
then Y formula. It is also intrinsicly intuitive and simpler to understand.
All damage occurs in one point alotments that are taken sequentially. Each
point of damage is resolved before the next point of damage. This is
intuitively understood and implied in the rules. See 6.4.6 "For each point
of damage inflicted on a vampire, he must burn one blood to heal the damage.
...If a vampire cannot heal all the damage (i.e., more damage is inflicted
than he has blood with which to heal), he burns blood to heal what damage he
can and enters torpor ... If both regular damage and aggravated damage are
successfully inflicted on a vampire at the same time, the regular damage is
handled first."
These are the key components to how damage resolution is handled in the
game, and it implies that they are handled sequencially and it dictates that
specific amounts and types of damage are ordered differently.
Also, if you had multiple Anathemas on a vampire, then each of their card
texts would be satisfied by the reaching of zero blood by the target
vampire. Intuitively, they should all resolve at this point in time as
their texts have been satisfied (if X then Y).
This reeks of Magic and creating unituitive rulings that confuse and anger
the average player. I furthermore would stipulate that unintuitive rulings
do not unite players into a group of enlightenment, but rather divide
players into two camps. One is rules-lawyering intellegencia, and the other
is the casual player. You will drive the casual player from tournaments if
he/she is trumped by some inintuitive ruling rather than superior strategy.
--
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr.
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
Derek Ray
<3DD95610...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ mumbled something about:
> Mike Ooi wrote:
>> Boy Toy is acting. Boy Toy has had Anathema placed on him. During Boy
>> Toy's action, he is blocked. Boy Toy has 1 blood. During strike
>> resolution, Boy Toy must take 1 damage and 2 aggravated. Boy Toy has been
>> reduced to zero blood (satisfying Anathema's card text) but is also being
>> burned. Can his Methuselah play Abandoning the Flesh, which removes Boy
>> Toy from the game (and burns all his accoutrement) and ignore the
>> Anathema?
>
> If you mean "and let the Anathema be burned before it resolves", then yes.
In a much simpler way than Norm put it: Can't be.
During strike resolution, normal damage resolves before aggravated.
Boy Toy burns 1 blood to heal the normal damage, and as a result is reduced
to zero blood in combat. Anathema burns him on the spot; the 2 aggravated
damage is never taken. While Abandoning the Flesh is still playable
(because Boy Toy *is* being burned), you couldn't choose to take the agg
and burn him; he was gone before the aggravated damage ever entered the
picture.
-- Derek
Angus, the Unruled
I thought the damage resolves simultaneously. The normal damage is
just "handled" before the aggravated, so that the controller of the
minion cannot prevent his vampire from being burned by saying "he gets
3 aggravated (takes off 2 blood, moves him to torpor) and 4 normal
damage (takes away the 2 remaining blood counters)"
My opinion: Both Anathema resolve, as their requirements are fulfilled
at exactly the same time.
My proposal: declare it as being "not stackable"
greets,
Angus
LSJ
>
> In a much simpler way than Norm put it: Can't be.
>
> During strike resolution, normal damage resolves before aggravated.
All the damage is handled together. They resolve all together.
The "sequencing" you note is just a convenience to aid in
understanding how to handle normal and aggravated damage done
at the same time.
You cannot interrupt the "sequence", however.
> Boy Toy burns 1 blood to heal the normal damage, and as a result is reduced
> to zero blood in combat. Anathema burns him on the spot; the 2 aggravated
> damage is never taken. While Abandoning the Flesh is still playable
> (because Boy Toy *is* being burned), you couldn't choose to take the agg
> and burn him; he was gone before the aggravated damage ever entered the
> picture.
Not true. When you begin resolving the damage, you finish resolving the
damage.
For instance, with no Anathema, but otherwise the same example, Boy Toy
would not go to torpor and then be burned, as he would if your new
staccato method were applied. [RTR 09-NOV-1994]
See also Vagabond Mystic's inability to interrupt damage resoltion:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8ukfr7%24kp3%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
XZealot
> Derek Ray wrote:
> > <3DD95610...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ mumbled something about:
> > > If you mean "and let the Anathema be burned before it resolves", then
yes.
> >
> > In a much simpler way than Norm put it: Can't be.
> >
> > During strike resolution, normal damage resolves before aggravated.
>
> All the damage is handled together. They resolve all together.
>
> The "sequencing" you note is just a convenience to aid in
> understanding how to handle normal and aggravated damage done
> at the same time.
>
> You cannot interrupt the "sequence", however.
But you do interrupt the sequence for various reasons. They are right in
the rulebook and I quoted them. Going to torpor interrupts the sequence.
Aggrivated damage interrupts the sequence. Aggrivated and Normal damage
together must obey a specific sequence. Damage prevention interrupts the
sequence. Anathema by card text interrupts the sequence. Amaranth creates
its own sequence.
They are all handled in specific sequences that are interrupted from time to
time. This is intuitively understood and accepted as part of the game
mechanics.
LSJ
> >
> > The "sequencing" you note is just a convenience to aid in
> > understanding how to handle normal and aggravated damage done
> > at the same time.
> >
> > You cannot interrupt the "sequence", however.
>
> But you do interrupt the sequence for various reasons. They are right in
> the rulebook and I quoted them. Going to torpor interrupts the sequence.
No it doesn't, as I just pointed out. (in the part you snipped)
> Aggrivated damage interrupts the sequence. Aggrivated and Normal damage
> together must obey a specific sequence.
Agg is *part* of the misnomered "sequence" - it doesn't interrupt it.
> Damage prevention interrupts the
> sequence.
No, it doesn't. It is played before you begin healing or preventing
destruction from or burning life for damage.
> Anathema by card text interrupts the sequence.
No, it doesn't.
> Amaranth creates its own sequence.
No. It is played after the damage being handled is handled.
> They are all handled in specific sequences that are interrupted from time to
> time. This is intuitively understood and accepted as part of the game
> mechanics.
Incorrect. You may have intuitively misunderstood it in the past, however.
Many people find damage resolution nonintuitive (they try to "intuitively"
equate damage with blood loss, for example).
Let's work out the misunderstanding and then we can all be playing the game
by the official rules.
XZealot
The reason that I perhaps misunderstood it is that for each point of damage
one blood must be burned to heal that damage. The way it is handled now is
on a point by point basis of healing damage( See Regenerative blood).
You take a point of damage and you must heal it to keep from going to
torpor.
How many points of damage keep you out of torpor? One
The one that you can't burn blood to heal sends you to torpor.
Everything beyond that one once you are going to torpor is a wash ( unless
agrivated of course).
That is why I understood it as sequencially occuring in my mind, because the
whole torpor/ready status depends upon only one point of damage.
LSJ
> The reason that I perhaps misunderstood it is that for each point of damage
> one blood must be burned to heal that damage. The way it is handled now is
> on a point by point basis of healing damage( See Regenerative blood).
Yes. But all of that "handling" is wrapped up in a single step.
See the previous messages (and cited messages/rulings).
> You take a point of damage and you must heal it to keep from going to
> torpor.
>
> How many points of damage keep you out of torpor? One
>
> The one that you can't burn blood to heal sends you to torpor.
>
> Everything beyond that one once you are going to torpor is a wash ( unless
> agrivated of course).
Right, but they are still all handled (becoming redundantly wounded)
before your actually go to torpor.
> That is why I understood it as sequencially occuring in my mind, because the
> whole torpor/ready status depends upon only one point of damage.
There's a critical point in there, sure.
With 2 blood, it takes 3 normal damage to torporize you.
If you receive 6 normal damage, you burn a blood for the "first" one,
another for the "second", fail to do so for the "third", fail again
for the "forth", "fifth", and "sixth" points and then go to torpor
(since you have taken damage that you haven't healed).
Angus, the Unruled
he is burned right away and the anathema does not kick in?
Is that really the way it was supposed to be?
LSJ
>
> So...if a Vampire with 1 blood and anathema gets 3 aggravated damage,
> he is burned right away and the anathema does not kick in?
Yes.
> Is that really the way it was supposed to be?
Ask the designers of Anathema (at WotC).
reyda
> "Angus, the Unruled" wrote:
>>
>> So...if a Vampire with 1 blood and anathema gets 3 aggravated
>> damage, he is burned right away and the anathema does not kick in?
>
> Yes.
>
>> Is that really the way it was supposed to be?
>
> Ask the designers of Anathema (at WotC).
C.R.A.P.
LSJ please answer when you are not drunk !
GP41
I second that thought.
I don't see why we should go that far to explain. K.I.S.S. (Keep It
Simple Stupid).
What purpose does it serve to say that blood loss due to damage act
first compare to Anathema? The vampire even if burned due to aggravated
was still reduce to zero due to blood loss right? And why suddenly
couldn't we stack the Anathema effects, or simply stack the burning
effect all together? This is simply another non-sense thread.
The game mechanics are already complicated, why should we make them
worst? Do we have to double the rulebook size to accomodate all these
rulings? I don't think so.
I totally agree with XZealot by saying that there is too much
intelectual talking here. This is getting worse then the Ice Skating at
the Olympics. It's just a game guys.
Geeeezzzz...
GP41
(Sorry guys, my girlfriend's PMS are affecting me too much)
LSJ
Please avoid slander.
Flux
> "Angus, the Unruled" wrote:
> >
> > So...if a Vampire with 1 blood and anathema gets 3 aggravated damage,
> > he is burned right away and the anathema does not kick in?
>
> Yes.
That can't be.
If he is burned, there must be a time while he is in combat and 'going to
the ash heap', much like wounded vampires are 'going to torpor', so that
'when combat ends' and other similar cards can be played. That time should
be enough to trigger the Anathema.
What if a vampire being burned to damage carrying an Anathema plays inferior
Reform Body? Reform Body is a combat card, so the vampire is then in combat
and going to torpor and should burn to the Anathema.
But why should the Anathema trigger when he is going to torpor, and not when
he is being burned? If it can't trigger when he is being burned, it can't
trigger when he is going to torpor either, because when he enters torpor
he's no longer in combat, and therefore can't trigger the Anathema, right?
If he does have time to trigger the Anathema before entering torpor, he
should have enough time to trigger the Anathema before he enters the ash
heap too.
Flux
LSJ
>
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:3DDB8305...@white-wolf.com...
> > "Angus, the Unruled" wrote:
> > >
> > > So...if a Vampire with 1 blood and anathema gets 3 aggravated damage,
> > > he is burned right away and the anathema does not kick in?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> That can't be.
>
> If he is burned, there must be a time while he is in combat and 'going to
> the ash heap', much like wounded vampires are 'going to torpor', so that
> 'when combat ends' and other similar cards can be played. That time should
> be enough to trigger the Anathema.
>
> What if a vampire being burned to damage carrying an Anathema plays inferior
> Reform Body? Reform Body is a combat card, so the vampire is then in combat
> and going to torpor and should burn to the Anathema.
Yes.
> But why should the Anathema trigger when he is going to torpor, and not when
> he is being burned? If it can't trigger when he is being burned, it can't
> trigger when he is going to torpor either, because when he enters torpor
> he's no longer in combat, and therefore can't trigger the Anathema, right?
Anathema doesn't care about torpor.
> If he does have time to trigger the Anathema before entering torpor, he
> should have enough time to trigger the Anathema before he enters the ash
> heap too.
>
> Flux
Flux
> Flux wrote:
> > But why should the Anathema trigger when he is going to torpor, and not
when
> > he is being burned? If it can't trigger when he is being burned, it
can't
> > trigger when he is going to torpor either, because when he enters torpor
> > he's no longer in combat, and therefore can't trigger the Anathema,
right?
>
> Anathema doesn't care about torpor.
But it cares about the vampire being in combat. If the vampire is in torpor,
he's no longer in combat and can't trigger the Anathema.
Flux
LSJ
He was reduced to zero blood in combat and Anathema is still in play.
Flux
> Flux wrote:
> >
> > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> > news:3DDD44EE...@white-wolf.com...
> > > Flux wrote:
> > > > But why should the Anathema trigger when he is going to torpor, and not
> when
> > > > he is being burned? If it can't trigger when he is being burned, it
> can't
> > > > trigger when he is going to torpor either, because when he enters torpor
> > > > he's no longer in combat, and therefore can't trigger the Anathema,
> right?
> > >
> > > Anathema doesn't care about torpor.
> >
> > But it cares about the vampire being in combat. If the vampire is in torpor,
> > he's no longer in combat and can't trigger the Anathema.
>
> He was reduced to zero blood in combat and Anathema is still in play.
Ok, then you're saying that Anathema will only take effect after the
vampire has entered torpor (so Fame still triggers, for example).
While I can understand your logic, I disagree that it should work that
way.
If there is a time, during combat, that the vampire has 0 blood, the
Anathema should resolve immediatelly or not at all. If you say that
there is no time for the Anathema to trigger when a vampire is being
burned, then resolving damage and moving to torpor/ash heap should be
atomic (except for the hundred or so effects that interrupt it), and
as soon as the vampire has 0 blood it's also in torpor/the ash heap
(and out of combat). If it's not atomic (as implied by those effects
that interrupt it) then Anathema should resolve.
Flux
LSJ
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3DDD4B87...@white-wolf.com>...
> > He was reduced to zero blood in combat and Anathema is still in play.
>
> Ok, then you're saying that Anathema will only take effect after the
> vampire has entered torpor (so Fame still triggers, for example).
No.
The vampire doesn't enter torpor until after combat.
Anathema will burn him before he enters torpor.
> While I can understand your logic, I disagree that it should work that
> way.
>
> If there is a time, during combat, that the vampire has 0 blood, the
> Anathema should resolve immediatelly or not at all.
Yes, except that nothing interrupts damage handling once damage handling
is begun, and two Anathema's don't resolve simultaneously.
> If you say that
> there is no time for the Anathema to trigger when a vampire is being
> burned, then resolving damage and moving to torpor/ash heap should be
> atomic (except for the hundred or so effects that interrupt it), and
No. You don't go to torpor until after finishing the damage handling.
> as soon as the vampire has 0 blood it's also in torpor/the ash heap
> (and out of combat). If it's not atomic (as implied by those effects
> that interrupt it) then Anathema should resolve.
Damage handling is atomic. Going to torpor is not included in that
atomic set, though.
Colin Riggs
>> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
>> news:<3DDD4B87...@white-wolf.com>...
>>> He was reduced to zero blood in combat and Anathema is still in
>>> play.
>>
>> Ok, then you're saying that Anathema will only take effect after the
>> vampire has entered torpor (so Fame still triggers, for example).
>
> No.
> The vampire doesn't enter torpor until after combat.
> Anathema will burn him before he enters torpor.
>
>> While I can understand your logic, I disagree that it should work
>> that way.
>>
>> If there is a time, during combat, that the vampire has 0 blood, the
>> Anathema should resolve immediatelly or not at all.
>
> Yes, except that nothing interrupts damage handling once damage
> handling is begun, and two Anathema's don't resolve simultaneously.
>
Just for Clarity, as this thread has gone on way too long. Given this
situation:
Nu the Pilar uses a Haven to enter combat with an twice Anathemad Julia
Prima with Mr. Winthrop. (Hi Josh!)
Nu plays Lapse (TEM), Drawing Out the Beast, Torn Signpost, Fists of Death,
Claws of the Dead, after range Death of My Conscience discarding 4 cards for
+8 Strength.
Julia plays Nothing.
Nu strikes Pushing the Limit, for 16 aggravated.
Before this thread, Julia would have been reduced to zero blood, and Nu's
controller would have gotten 14 pool for the two Anathemas.
Now, because I was dumb and played claws, I burn Julia and no Anathemas go
off. Because the damage is resolved, Julia burns, Anathema goes away. If I
hadn't played claws, Julia would be reduced to zero blood. Anathema #1 would
check to see if she was at zero blood, burned her and I would have gotten 7
pool. Anathema #2 is burned along with Julia.
Although I am the last person who wants to see Anathema weakened (see my
favorite deck in the whos who) this really doesn't hurt Anathema at all. It
also is a simple explanation of the rules that happens to resolve a thematic
boo boo. Is there anything horribly wrong about the ruling that I am missing
and is worth making a fuss over?
Colin Riggs
JOL C6, watch it Josh...
LSJ
> Nu the Pilar uses a Haven to enter combat with an twice Anathemad Julia
> Prima with Mr. Winthrop. (Hi Josh!)
>
> Nu plays Lapse (TEM), Drawing Out the Beast, Torn Signpost, Fists of Death,
> Claws of the Dead, after range Death of My Conscience discarding 4 cards for
> +8 Strength.
>
> Julia plays Nothing.
>
> Nu strikes Pushing the Limit, for 16 aggravated.
>
> off. Because the damage is resolved, Julia burns, Anathema goes away. If I
> hadn't played claws, Julia would be reduced to zero blood. Anathema #1 would
> check to see if she was at zero blood, burned her and I would have gotten 7
> pool. Anathema #2 is burned along with Julia.
Correct.
Flux
> Flux wrote:
> > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:<3DDD4B87...@white-wolf.com>...
> > > He was reduced to zero blood in combat and Anathema is still in play.
> >
> > Ok, then you're saying that Anathema will only take effect after the
> > vampire has entered torpor (so Fame still triggers, for example).
>
> No.
> The vampire doesn't enter torpor until after combat.
> Anathema will burn him before he enters torpor.
Hm, now that doesn't make much sense.
Subtitute 'enter torpor' with 'go to the ash heap' and you have a
justification for Anathema to work when the minion is burned.
> > While I can understand your logic, I disagree that it should work that
> > way.
> >
> > If there is a time, during combat, that the vampire has 0 blood, the
> > Anathema should resolve immediatelly or not at all.
>
> Yes, except that nothing interrupts damage handling once damage handling
> is begun, and two Anathema's don't resolve simultaneously.
Ah, but I'm not disputing the multi-Anathema's ruling, only about Anathema's
resolution when the minion is burned to agg damage. I do agree that
Anathema's shouldn't stack, because it's own effects (burning and gaining
pool) are atomic.
> > If you say that
> > there is no time for the Anathema to trigger when a vampire is being
> > burned, then resolving damage and moving to torpor/ash heap should be
> > atomic (except for the hundred or so effects that interrupt it), and
>
> No. You don't go to torpor until after finishing the damage handling.
>
> > as soon as the vampire has 0 blood it's also in torpor/the ash heap
> > (and out of combat). If it's not atomic (as implied by those effects
> > that interrupt it) then Anathema should resolve.
>
> Damage handling is atomic. Going to torpor is not included in that
> atomic set, though.
Right, that's how I think it should be.
Then Anathema should always work if the minion is burned to agg damage,
because he doesn't enter the ash heap immediatelly.
I see no reason why the timing for entering torpor should be any different
from the timing for entering the ash heap. Am I mistaken?
Flux
LSJ
> > > If there is a time, during combat, that the vampire has 0 blood, the
> > > Anathema should resolve immediatelly or not at all.
> >
> > Yes, except that nothing interrupts damage handling once damage handling
> > is begun, and two Anathema's don't resolve simultaneously.
>
> Ah, but I'm not disputing the multi-Anathema's ruling, only about Anathema's
> resolution when the minion is burned to agg damage. I do agree that
> Anathema's shouldn't stack, because it's own effects (burning and gaining
> pool) are atomic.
The 2nd Anathema doesn't resolve after the first for the
same reason that one Anathema won't resolve after the vampire is burned.
That is: because the vampire is burned.
Angus, the Unruled
> favorite deck in the whos who) this really doesn't hurt Anathema at all. It
> also is a simple explanation of the rules that happens to resolve a thematic
> boo boo. Is there anything horribly wrong about the ruling that I am missing
> and is worth making a fuss over?
Nothing is horribly wrong. This is just a game, after all. It's just
that i personally dislike the thought of an "alastor" (the one hunting
the anathema), who doesn't get his reward because he killed the
anathema-vampire (actually, that's what he is supposed to do).
For game terms: would it really be that bad to just make the descision
that anathema does not stack, but neighter gets burned along with the
vampire being burned?
BTW: LSJ: where exactly do you find a hint in the card text of
anathema that it cannot kick in simultaneous with another anathema?
Jozxyqk
> anathema that it cannot kick in simultaneous with another anathema?
V:tES doesn't have the concept of "Simultaneous". One thing happens,
then the other. If an Anathema kicks in, then the vampire isn't there
when it's time for the other one to kick in.
LSJ
Correct.
Halcyan 2
>> then the other. If an Anathema kicks in, then the vampire isn't there
>> when it's time for the other one to kick in.
>
>Correct.
Ha! Game of Malkav requires players to "Reveal the choices simultaneously." So
there's one example. And the Rock/Paper/Scissors aspect of Malkavian Game also
relies on a simultaneous aspect! =P
Halcyan 2
Flux
> Flux wrote:
>
> >"LSJ" wrote in message
> >
> >>Flux wrote:
> >>
> >>>If there is a time, during combat, that the vampire has 0 blood, the
> >>>Anathema should resolve immediatelly or not at all.
> >>
> >>Yes, except that nothing interrupts damage handling once damage handling
> >>is begun, and two Anathema's don't resolve simultaneously.
> >
> >Ah, but I'm not disputing the multi-Anathema's ruling, only about
> Anathema's
> >resolution when the minion is burned to agg damage. I do agree that
> >Anathema's shouldn't stack, because it's own effects (burning and gaining
> >pool) are atomic.
>
>
> The 2nd Anathema doesn't resolve after the first for the
> same reason that one Anathema won't resolve after the vampire is burned.
> That is: because the vampire is burned.
I'm not disputing that the Anathema can't resolve if it's burned, but
there should be time for an Anathema to resolve _before_ the vampire is
burned by agg damage (that is, he is burned to the Anathema _instead_ of
being burned to agg damage). You haven't given me any reasons to
believe otherwise.
You said:
'The vampire doesn't enter torpor until after combat.
Anathema will burn him before he enters torpor.'
So what you're saying is:
- when a vampire goes to torpor, Anathema resolves before the minion is
in torpor, before combat ends.
- when a vampire is burned, Anathema would resolve (and can't) after the
minion is burned, after combat ends.
Why the difference?
It's not allowed for the Anathema to resolve before a vampire is burned
to agg damage, even though that is the time when Anathema triggers if
the vampire is going to torpor!!!
You snipped my question before, so I'll repeat it once again: why should
the timing for entering torpor be any different from the timing for
entering the ash heap?
Flux
Enrique San Martín
> "Choose a ready vampire. If the referendum is successful, put this card on
> that vampire. "If the vampire with this card" is reduced to zero blood in
> combat, he or she is burned, and the Methuselah controlling the opposing
> minion gains pool equal to the burned vampire's capacity."
>
> "If the vampire with this card"
>
> The vampire with this card, therefore is the card (the politics) the one
> that gives the pool to the matusalen that controls the minion opponent,
> should receive twice the capacity of the vampire
>
>
>
> > > My question is:
> > > If Anathema is played twice in a vampire, and this is
> > > reduced to zero blood (in combat), ¿what happening?, ¿the mathusalen,
> > > controlling the opposing minion, earns twice the capacity of the
> > > vampire? or ¿ simply is lost the effect of the second anathema?
> >
> > IANLSJ, but i think the answer to this is that the second Anathema
> > doesn't kick off, because it is played ON the vampire. This means that
> > when the vampire burns due to the First Anathema, both the vampire and
> > the second anathema also burn, so the second one has no chance to kick
> > in.
> >
> > <snip Spanish text - thanks, matey, your question is perfectly
> > well-phrased!>
Another fact is the question of what anathema trigger first... if one
anathema burn the vampire, what is.. the first played, the last
played... ????
I think they mathusalen gain 2x pool... :-)
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
> > The 2nd Anathema doesn't resolve after the first for the
> > same reason that one Anathema won't resolve after the vampire is burned.
> > That is: because the vampire is burned.
> - when a vampire goes to torpor, Anathema resolves before the minion is
> in torpor, before combat ends.
> - when a vampire is burned, Anathema would resolve (and can't) after the
> minion is burned, after combat ends.
>
> Why the difference?
The minion who burns from agg damage burns in combat, at the time the agg damage
is resolved.
> You snipped my question before, so I'll repeat it once again: why should
> the timing for entering torpor be any different from the timing for
> entering the ash heap?
Why should it not?
Flux
> Flux wrote:
>
> >LSJ wrote:
> >
> >>The 2nd Anathema doesn't resolve after the first for the
> >>same reason that one Anathema won't resolve after the vampire is burned.
> >>That is: because the vampire is burned.
> >
> >So what you're saying is:
> >- when a vampire goes to torpor, Anathema resolves before the minion is
> >in torpor, before combat ends.
> >- when a vampire is burned, Anathema would resolve (and can't) after the
> >minion is burned, after combat ends.
> >
> >Why the difference?
>
>
> The minion who burns from agg damage burns in combat, at the time the
> agg damage is resolved.
>
>
> >You snipped my question before, so I'll repeat it once again: why should
> >the timing for entering torpor be any different from the timing for
> >entering the ash heap?
>
>
> Why should it not?
Because that is a poor excuse to make an unintuitive ruling, when there
is nothing to support it.
All cards refering to vampires 'being burned' use the same template as
those for vampires 'going to torpor'. I don't see why a difference
should be introduced now, when the most intuitive reasoning seems to be
that they have identical timings.
In fact, the ruling for cards not usable by a vampire going into torpor
not being usable by vampires being burned either seems to indicate that
burning is not instantaneous, otherwise such a ruling wouldn't be
needed, burned vampires can't play any cards anyway (except for specific
card text).
Flux
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
> > Flux wrote:
> > >You snipped my question before, so I'll repeat it once again: why should
> > >the timing for entering torpor be any different from the timing for
> > >entering the ash heap?
>
> > Why should it not?
>
> Because that is a poor excuse to make an unintuitive ruling, when there
> is nothing to support it.
You might be right if there were nothing to support it.
But the ruling on burning without getting to the torpor part clearly
indicates that they do no share the same timing window (otherwise
the acting Methuselah could order the events as she liked).
So again, why should they have the same timing window? i.e., why should
we reverse the timing ruling that has been around since the start of
the game?
Sascha Neumayr
> anathema burn the vampire, what is.. the first played, the last
> played... ????
>
> I think they mathusalen gain 2x pool... :-)
And what if two different mehts each play an Anathema on a single vampire?
Sonnenkoenig207
so what? the controller of the opposing minion gets the pool anyway, so it
doesn't matter whode anathem you get the pool from...
Flux
> Flux wrote:
>
> >LSJ wrote:
> >
> >>Flux wrote:
> >>
> >>>You snipped my question before, so I'll repeat it once again: why
> should
> >>>the timing for entering torpor be any different from the timing for
> >>>entering the ash heap?
> >
> >>Why should it not?
> >
> >Because that is a poor excuse to make an unintuitive ruling, when there
> >is nothing to support it.
>
>
> You might be right if there were nothing to support it.
> But the ruling on burning without getting to the torpor part clearly
> indicates that they do no share the same timing window (otherwise
> the acting Methuselah could order the events as she liked).
Good point, but it's not enough :)
That ruling may simply mean that going to torpor and burning in combat
is an 'either/or' case, you can't burn _and_ go to torpor. While it
could be explained by a difference in timing, it does not imply such a
difference, and OTOH even if such a difference exists it still doesn't
mean that a vampire being burned has to do so while in combat, the
sequence could be 'end combat - burn - go to torpor'.
> So again, why should they have the same timing window? i.e., why
> should we reverse the timing ruling that has been around since the
> start of the game?
No reversal is necessary, burning and going to torpor can still have the
same timing window ('when combat ends'), and they have a fixed order
among themselves. That seems (somewhat) more intuitive than burning
while in combat and going to torpor after combat.
Also, as I mentioned in my last post, if you do stick to your ruling
concerning Anathema, then the ruling concerning cards not playable by
vampires being burned is unnecessary, and should be removed.
Flux
LSJ
True, but even so: the acting Methuselah chooses the order in which they
resolve (that is, chooses which one resolves and which one burns before it
can resolve).
Angus, the Unruled
> Jozxyqk wrote:
> >
> > > BTW: LSJ: where exactly do you find a hint in the card text of
> > > anathema that it cannot kick in simultaneous with another anathema?
> >
> > V:tES doesn't have the concept of "Simultaneous". One thing happens,
> > then the other. If an Anathema kicks in, then the vampire isn't there
> > when it's time for the other one to kick in.
>
> Correct.
Could you please tell me in which part of the rulebook this can be
found?
I know of no other case where this actually has impact on the game.
Please tell if there is another case in which the ruling would be
different when effects are done "simultaneously" (without any other
ruling kicking in, and without the ruling for strikes, as you already
said that this is an exeption).
If there is no other, then it would seem that this rule was just
invented for this one case.
LSJ
>
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3DDE96B8...@white-wolf.com>...
> > Jozxyqk wrote:
> > >
> > > > BTW: LSJ: where exactly do you find a hint in the card text of
> > > > anathema that it cannot kick in simultaneous with another anathema?
> > >
> > > V:tES doesn't have the concept of "Simultaneous". One thing happens,
> > > then the other. If an Anathema kicks in, then the vampire isn't there
> > > when it's time for the other one to kick in.
> >
> > Correct.
>
> Could you please tell me in which part of the rulebook this can be
> found?
It stems from 1.6.1.6
Conversely, can you cite any rulebook text to the contrary?
> I know of no other case where this actually has impact on the game.
> Please tell if there is another case in which the ruling would be
> different when effects are done "simultaneously" (without any other
> ruling kicking in, and without the ruling for strikes, as you already
> said that this is an exeption).
>
> If there is no other, then it would seem that this rule was just
> invented for this one case.
Day Operation + Force of Will, for one.
Gomi no Sensei
Flux <fl...@netc.pt> wrote:
>No reversal is necessary, burning and going to torpor can still have the
>same timing window ('when combat ends'), and they have a fixed order
>among themselves. That seems (somewhat) more intuitive than burning
>while in combat and going to torpor after combat.
>
>Also, as I mentioned in my last post, if you do stick to your ruling
>concerning Anathema, then the ruling concerning cards not playable by
>vampires being burned is unnecessary, and should be removed.
Here's how it works, and it's (for me) intuitive. I hope the breakdown helps
make it a little clearer.
Koko has 2 blood and takes 5 damage in combat. He has Anathema.
Bear in mind that damage resolution cannot be interrupted by effects
(see Garou, Thrown Sewer Lid, and Vagabond Mystic ruling).
If the damage is normal:
Koko takes 5 damage. Heals 1. Heals 2. Fails to heal 3, is wounded.
4, wounded redundantly. 5, wounded redundantly. All damage has now been
resolved. Koko is still around, still in combat, still has Anathema.
So Anathema kicks in.
If the damage is aggravated:
Koko takes 5 damage. Can't heal 1, gets wounded. Burns 1 blood to prevent
destruction. Burns 1 blood to prevent destruction. Can't burn another
blood, so burns. Fifth point is disregarded. All damage has now been
resolved. There is no KoKo or Anathema in play at this point.
Does that help any? Having Anathema interrupt damage dealing is a bit of
an unprecedented effect, and would let me argue that (say) a Garou
taking a Sewer Lid to the face can be saved by a Vagabond Mystic tapping
between the second and third point of damage, which is currently
(and properly) illegal.
gomi
--
there's a place called heaven and a place called hell
there's a place called prison and a place called jail
and daddy's probably on his way to all of them, except one...
Flux
> In article ,
> Flux wrote:
>
>
> >No reversal is necessary, burning and going to torpor can still have the
> >same timing window ('when combat ends'), and they have a fixed order
> >among themselves. That seems (somewhat) more intuitive than burning
> >while in combat and going to torpor after combat.
> >
> >Also, as I mentioned in my last post, if you do stick to your ruling
> >concerning Anathema, then the ruling concerning cards not playable by
> >vampires being burned is unnecessary, and should be removed.
>
>
> Here's how it works, and it's (for me) intuitive. I hope the breakdown
> helps make it a little clearer.
Thanks, but I have no problem in understanding how it works. I just
don't agree that, given the current rule/rulings, it should work that way.
> Koko has 2 blood and takes 5 damage in combat. He has Anathema.
>
> Bear in mind that damage resolution cannot be interrupted by effects
> (see Garou, Thrown Sewer Lid, and Vagabond Mystic ruling).
>
> If the damage is normal:
>
> Koko takes 5 damage. Heals 1. Heals 2. Fails to heal 3, is wounded.
> 4, wounded redundantly. 5, wounded redundantly. All damage has now been
> resolved. Koko is still around, still in combat, still has Anathema.
> So Anathema kicks in.
>
> If the damage is aggravated:
>
> Koko takes 5 damage. Can't heal 1, gets wounded. Burns 1 blood to prevent
> destruction. Burns 1 blood to prevent destruction. Can't burn another
> blood, so burns. Fifth point is disregarded. All damage has now been
> resolved. There is no KoKo or Anathema in play at this point.
Ok, my point is: why is Koko burned instantly, but sticks around, in
combat, if he's going to torpor?
I have found no ruling that resolves that point (and I have looked). I
have found one ruling that suggests that burning is not immediate (since
it implies that burning vampires may play combat cards), and LSJ has
showed one ruling suggesting that burning happens before going to torpor
- and I argued that still does not prove that burning should be done
before the combat ends.
> Does that help any? Having Anathema interrupt damage dealing is a bit
> of an unprecedented effect, and would let me argue that (say) a Garou
> taking a Sewer Lid to the face can be saved by a Vagabond Mystic
> tapping between the second and third point of damage, which is
> currently (and properly) illegal.
As I said, I'm not arguing for Anathema to interrupt damage dealing
(others have tried to argue that point, I don't). I am saying that a
minion 'being burned' is not that different from a minion 'going to
torpor', and so should trigger Anathema.
So what I'm proposing is that you could use the Vagabond Mystic ability
on the Garou, but only after all damage had resolved and the Garou was
already on its way to the ash heap, and gaining one life would make no
difference at that point.
Flux
Angus, the Unruled
Sequencing: If two or more players want to play a card or effect, the
acting Methuselah plays first. At every stage, the acting player
always has the opportunity to play the next card or effect. So after
playing one effect, she may play another and another. Once she is
finished, the opportunity passes to the defending Methuselah (in the
cases of directed actions and combat), then to the rest of the
Methuselahs in clockwise order from the acting Methuselah. Note that
if any card or effect is used by any Methuselah, the acting Methuselah
again gets the opportunity to play the next effect.
This is entirely about "playing" cards. It is not about sequenzing
"effects" of cards that have already been played.
> Conversely, can you cite any rulebook text to the contrary?
As far as i know, the core lawsystem in america is the same as in
austria: everything thats not forbidden is allowed. So, i do not have
to find any rule telling me that effects can be resolved
simultaneously. As long as you cannot show me a rule that forbids
such, it is allowed.
> > I know of no other case where this actually has impact on the game.
> > Please tell if there is another case in which the ruling would be
> > different when effects are done "simultaneously" (without any other
> > ruling kicking in, and without the ruling for strikes, as you already
> > said that this is an exeption).
> >
> > If there is no other, then it would seem that this rule was just
> > invented for this one case.
>
> Day Operation + Force of Will, for one.
That's a ruling for two different effects. Not quite the same as 2
equal effects just stacking up, with the same trigger timing.
Angus, the Unruled
> (see Garou, Thrown Sewer Lid, and Vagabond Mystic ruling).
Where can i find that ruling?
Could not find anything on the WW-page.
Miller Delmardigan
"Angus, the Unruled" <athosg...@gmx.at> a écrit dans le message de news:
690c2085.02112...@posting.google.com...
Extracted from http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulings.html, Damage section
(second point):
a.. Resolving multiple points of (simultaneous) damage is done all at once -
you cannot interrupt the process to play some other effect (like tapping the
Vagabond Mystic). [LSJ 20001111]
Cheers
Miller Delmardigan
http://sabbatinfrance.free.fr/en
Angus, the Unruled
... to _play_ some other effect.
Anathema does not get _played_ this time. It's effect triggers at this
time. That's a difference.
Plus: specific Card text overrules.
Anathema: ...if the Vampire is reduced to zero ... yadda yadda
Is it reduced to zero ? Yes
Is it in combat ? Yes
Any rule forbidding _effects_ from cards _played_ prior to resolution
to take place during strike resolution? No
LSJ
> Anathema: ...if the Vampire is reduced to zero ... yadda yadda
> Is it reduced to zero ? Yes
> Is it in combat ? Yes
Is Anathema still in play? No. It was burned when the minion it was
on was burned.
Gomi no Sensei
Angus, the Unruled <athosg...@gmx.at> wrote:
>> It stems from 1.6.1.6
[snip 1.6.1.6]
>This is entirely about "playing" cards. It is not about sequenzing
>"effects" of cards that have already been played.
Nope, it's about effect sequencing in general. 1.6.1.6 governs the timing
of such things as burning Living Manse to end combat, burning an existing
Marked Path for stealth, or tapping stealth locations such as the Labyrinth.
At all times where such an effect can be generated, whether from the hand
or by a card in play, the priority rules for such effects is as stated
in 1.6.1.6. Anathema's wording contains no exceptions for such sequencing.
Anathema's timing is governed by 1.6.1.6, QED.
>As far as i know, the core lawsystem in america is the same as in
>austria: everything thats not forbidden is allowed. So, i do not have
>to find any rule telling me that effects can be resolved
>simultaneously. As long as you cannot show me a rule that forbids
>such, it is allowed.
See 1.6.1.6.
>That's a ruling for two different effects. Not quite the same as 2
>equal effects just stacking up, with the same trigger timing.
Dual Spying Missions, then -- those resolve sequentially, with the same
trigger window and everything.
Angus, the Unruled
> "Angus, the Unruled" wrote:
> > Anathema: ...if the Vampire is reduced to zero ... yadda yadda
> > Is it reduced to zero ? Yes
> > Is it in combat ? Yes
>
> Is Anathema still in play? No. It was burned when the minion it was
> on was burned.
It _was_ not burned, because the minion is not yet burned when he is
reduced to zero blood. No current rule forbids _effects_ of cards
played prior to damage-resolve to take place while damage is being
resolved.
Angus, the Unruled
> of such things as burning Living Manse to end combat, burning an existing
> Marked Path for stealth, or tapping stealth locations such as the Labyrinth.
all these examples have to be _chosen_ to activate by the controller.
Anathema simply states when it's effect will take place, without a
choice. As it's trigger timing is not to be chosen by any methuselah,
how can it be governed by the sequenzing rule? There is no acting or
reacting minion who's controller chooses to use it.
> At all times where such an effect can be generated, whether from the hand
> or by a card in play, the priority rules for such effects is as stated
> in 1.6.1.6. Anathema's wording contains no exceptions for such sequencing.
see above
> >That's a ruling for two different effects. Not quite the same as 2
> >equal effects just stacking up, with the same trigger timing.
>
> Dual Spying Missions, then -- those resolve sequentially, with the same
> trigger window and everything.
Then please tell me the difference for dual-spying missions it their
effects would take place simultaneous...
LSJ
>
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3DE3A2E8...@white-wolf.com>...
> > "Angus, the Unruled" wrote:
> > > Anathema: ...if the Vampire is reduced to zero ... yadda yadda
> > > Is it reduced to zero ? Yes
> > > Is it in combat ? Yes
> >
> > Is Anathema still in play? No. It was burned when the minion it was
> > on was burned.
>
> It _was_ not burned, because the minion is not yet burned when he is
> reduced to zero blood.
He is burned at the same time, though, by the aggravated damage being
handled at that time.
> No current rule forbids _effects_ of cards
> played prior to damage-resolve to take place while damage is being
> resolved.
Incorrect.
Angus, the Unruled
> "Angus, the Unruled" wrote:
> >
> > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3DE3A2E8...@white-wolf.com>...
> > > "Angus, the Unruled" wrote:
> > > > Anathema: ...if the Vampire is reduced to zero ... yadda yadda
> > > > Is it reduced to zero ? Yes
> > > > Is it in combat ? Yes
> > >
> > > Is Anathema still in play? No. It was burned when the minion it was
> > > on was burned.
> >
> > It _was_ not burned, because the minion is not yet burned when he is
> > reduced to zero blood.
>
> He is burned at the same time, though, by the aggravated damage being
> handled at that time.
>
> > No current rule forbids _effects_ of cards
> > played prior to damage-resolve to take place while damage is being
> > resolved.
>
> Incorrect.
Hmm..ok.
What happens if:
I got Franziskus with 3 discipline cards, Anathema and at full
capacity. Opposing minion strikes for 4 damage, i don't prevent.
LSJ
> What happens if:
> I got Franziskus with 3 discipline cards, Anathema and at full
> capacity. Opposing minion strikes for 4 damage, i don't prevent.
I assume you mean Franciscus the Caitiff.
Both the Anathema and his special try to go off at the same time.
Acting methuselah orders the events.
(You don't need the Discipline cards, BTW).